Originally posted by Bardock42
Well yes...but you do realise that being found innocent by the law doesn't mean you didn't do the crime....
That's an extremely lame and flawed rationale.
The man was found innocent.
Let's move on.
PR: That's exactly right. The way people act, you'd think they're pissed off that the guy didn't molest kids. As Victor stated.
-AC
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I realise this: but, do you realise that it's not what I'm talking about when I point out the legal meaning of innocent, which you seem to be disputing.
This is not true....I am just saying that being found "not guilty" doesn't mean that you are innocent...in legal terms yes....but people you have to understand: WE LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's an extremely lame and flawed rationale.The man was found innocent.
Let's move on.
PR: That's exactly right. The way people act, you'd think they're pissed off that the guy didn't molest kids. As Victor stated.
-AC
What the ****, it is in no way flawed....it is what it is...I agree with you....lets move on....but no one of us does know if he is or is not innocent.....
Originally posted by pr1983
thankfully not...
I don't know the truth, so i am not able to give such a statement...if you can I am happy for you.
Originally posted by Bardock42
This is not true....I am just saying that being found "not guilty" doesn't mean that you are innocent...in legal terms yes....but people you have to understand: WE LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD.
Do we?
Maybe you could undertsand this: I was talking about 'innocent' in the legal sense- which you have just admitted is correct. I'm not disputing anything else- that's the end of it.
I know that this does not guarantee not having done the crime. I think everyone does, it's not critical aesthetics.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Do we?Maybe you could undertsand this: I was talking about 'innocent' in the legal sense- which you have just admitted is correct. I'm not disputing anything else- that's the end of it.
I know that this does not guarantee not having done the crime. I think everyone does, it's not critical aesthetics.
Good then....although there is no such legal term as innocent.....
Originally posted by Bardock42
What the ****, it is in no way flawed....it is what it is...I agree with you....lets move on....but no one of us does know if he is or is not innocent.....
Yeah it is actually flawed. Sorry if you disagree, but it is.
He got found not guilty, which in legal terms means he is innocent.
If you are prepared to claim after EVERY crime, that the verdict doesn't mean anything, you don't lack rationale, you lack brain neurons.
That's not an insult, or intended as one. It's just perception.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah it is actually flawed. Sorry if you disagree, but it is.He got found not guilty, which in legal terms means he is innocent.
If you are prepared to claim after EVERY crime, that the verdict doesn't mean anything, you don't lack rationale, you lack brain neurons.
That's not an insult, or intended as one. It's just perception.
-AC
If you think that everytime someone was found "not guilty" he is absolutely and perfectly innocent....well you are just wrong.
You know that just because 12 people said he is innocent that doesn't mean that he didn't molest the kid...he either did or didn't , I don't know...but neither do you.
Originally posted by Bardock42
If you think that everytime someone was found "not guilty" he is absolutely and perfectly innocent....well you are just wrong.
What you have to understand is that while we all know that a court verdict doesn't absolutely guarantee innocence or guilty (unless it's severe evidence either way), but if you actually take that view of every court case, it's unbelievably stupid.
Unless we have ways of actually reading minds, we have to actually rely on out justice system. So to continually say "It doesn't mean he's innocent/guilty" is really silly.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You know that just because 12 people said he is innocent that doesn't mean that he didn't molest the kid...he either did or didn't , I don't know...but neither do you.
Yeah, excellent deduction, Watson.
Missing the point again. It's extremely ridiculous to have aforementioned point of view after a case.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What you have to understand is that while we all know that a court verdict doesn't absolutely guarantee innocence or guilty (unless it's severe evidence either way), but if you actually take that view of every court case, it's unbelievably stupid.Unless we have ways of actually reading minds, we have to actually rely on out justice system. So to continually say "It doesn't mean he's innocent/guilty" is really silly.
Yeah, excellent deduction, Watson.
Missing the point again. It's extremely ridiculous to have aforementioned point of view after a case.
-AC
No its not its realistic....everyone has to form their own opinion (or don't) ....but it hass ton be clear to everyone that a court can't change what has happened...if someone is found guilty and you don't belive it and for xample still send your children to that person (in case he wyas found guilty as child molester) thats ok...maybe kind of risky....I understand that he was not found guilty and that he'S free and I am perfectly fine with it...cause I don't know the truth ... but you have to accept that other people might still think he is guilty and they are entitled to their opinion and it is not worse just because a court disagreed.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No its not its realistic....everyone has to form their own opinion (or don't) ....but it hass ton be clear to everyone that a court can't change what has happened...if someone is found guilty and you don't belive it and for xample still send your children to that person (in case he wyas found guilty as child molester) thats ok...maybe kind of risky....I understand that he was not found guilty and that he'S free and I am perfectly fine with it...cause I don't know the truth ... but you have to accept that other people might still think he is guilty and they are entitled to their opinion and it is not worse just because a court disagreed.
Such an unbelieveably silly rationale.
Just completely ignoring a court verdict just because of that stupid "He could still have/have not done it."
Whether you like it or not, that's an incredibly naive standpoint.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Such an unbelieveably silly rationale.Just completely ignoring a court verdict just because of that stupid "He could still have/have not done it."
Whether you like it or not, that's an incredibly naive standpoint.
-AC
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It must be another legal system that is fundamentally based on the statement 'innocent until proven guilty' then.
Well ok that's right what I said there was wrong...but I still ca't belive that you just say because someone was found "not guilty" they are innocent yand you don't think for yourself if they are ....
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well ok that's right what I said there was wrong...but I still ca't belive that you just say because someone was found "not guilty" they are innocent yand you don't think for yourself if they are ....
Jesus.
Wake up man. 'Innocent' in the legal sense is the same as 'not guilty' in the legal sense. Got it? They are cleared- therefore they are 'not guilty' AKA 'innocent'. I'm not saying the man definitely did not do it.
The distinction you make is faulty anyway- you don't need to cite the word 'innocent' at all to make that point. If someone is found 'not guilty', it doesn't mean they are definitively 'not guilty'. There's no need to try to create a false separation between the words not guilty, and innocent.